The National Post kicked off a series on the environment yesterday with a great story (and when I say "great," it's because I totally agree with it) on food technology. The story looks at various aspects of reducing waste and environmental degradation through food production methods, whether it's bio-engineered crops or land-based fish farms.The story, which runs in what is generally considered a right-wing newspaper (although it never felt like that when I worked there), looks at the funny way in which food has become a pet cause for the left. In summary: "While Western environmentalists lionize unrefined, organic farms, one of the best ways to protect our environment is by spreading 21st century farming technology and corporate agricultural products." To put it another way - the left's position has usually gone something like: organic food = good, genetically modified food = bad.
(For the record, I consider myself a centrist - right on some issues, left on others. When it comes to food, I'm definitely a big proponent of more technology, not less. I'm also an animal lover, but I recognize our place atop the food chain.)
One of the interviewees is Patrick Moore, the former Canadian president of lefty poster people Greenpeace and now chairman of a communications company called Greenspirit Strategies. Moore takes the rather surprising view that technology, especially when applied to food, is a key tool in preserving the environment. "Intensive agricultural production is the key," he says. "It's simple arithmetic: the more food you grow per acre, the less natural world you have to clear to do it."
Such a view creates a perplexing dilemma for the left. On the one hand, genetic engineering - the kind that makes chickens so fat that they can't even stand up - is bad because it's cruel to animals. On the other hand, it's good because it uses less land to produce food and creates less polluting waste. So what's it going to be: animal cruelty or environmental destruction?
If you think that's a tough choice, wait till the effects of food shortages sharpen. One aspect the National Post story doesn't touch on, which I get into in my book, is how a lack of food can lead people into war and terrorism. The world's population is growing, and so is the lack of food. So what should we do when faced with the choices of war and terrorism or environmental degradation?
Those fat, misshapen chickens don't look so bad now, do they?
.jpg)
Posts
2 comments:
Seems to be a bit of a false choice, though. Surely we can make enough food for everyone while still being responsible stewards of the planet and the creatures on it?
You're right, it isn't that simplistic a choice, there are a lot of other factors. One is simple supply and demand - as people in developing countries want to eat more of the food we've been enjoying in the developed world, our supply of such things (i.e. meat) is going to be further strained. We simply don't have more land to farm more livestock, so that means one of two things: either the price of meat balloons, or the meat itself does. People in the developed world have grown incredibly hypocritical about their food because they don't seem to want to accept either option. That's a big problem.
Post a Comment